Muller report AG new conference

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Barrs letter has summaries written by him which differ substantially from the Executive summaries in the Mueller report and are far kinder to Trump.

Because of the formatting I found it is difficult to cut and paste the documents here. The Mueller report was not released in a convenient format to be searchable. https://www.pdfa.org/a-technical-and...er-report-pdf/

Here is Barrs letter, his summaries are on page 2 and 3
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...nd-Senate.html

Here is Muellers report, the executive summaries he prepared and which required no further redaction, are on pages in the pdf viewer 12-18 and 215-220.
https://apps.npr.org/documents/docum...-Muellerreport

Just tell us very specifically what's in the Mueller report, which flatly contradicts what Barr summarized. People can reach different conclusions, that's not necessary a lie.

It's being reported that Mueller called Barr, and told him that his conclusions were not inaccurate.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Just tell us very specifically what's in the Mueller report, which flatly contradicts what Barr summarized. People can reach different conclusions, that's not necessary a lie.

It's being reported that Mueller called Barr, and told him that his conclusions were not inaccurate.

Did you not read the Mueller report?

It's not what he said, it's what he did not say. The summaries were already prepared by the Mueller team and not used. Instead he quoted portions of paragraphs and spun the narrative.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“In making this determination, we noted that the special counsel recognized that ‘the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,’ and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the president’s intent with respect to obstruction.”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. II, Page 157: Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect noncriminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong. In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the president’s conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events — such as advance notice of WikiLeaks’ release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016, meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians could be seen as criminal activity by the president, his campaign or his family.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“The special counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: ‘[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.’”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. I, Page 1: The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Did you not read the Mueller report?

It's not what he said, it's what he did not say.

good grief....

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

good grief....

Maybe if I couch it in simple terms you could understand.

Your wife would be fine if you told her you were going for a drink after work, but you neglected to tell her it is with an old girlfriend.

Think she would be fine with that?

Hey, you didn't lie and you told her what you were doing.

Barr could have released the already redacted Executive summaries that were contained in the Mueller report, but people would have read them.

Not the same as the spin he released, that just omitted what didn't fit the desired narrative.

There is lots more there if you took the time to read the report.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the special counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign ‘coordinated’ with Russian election interference activities. The special counsel defined ‘coordination’ as an ‘agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference.’”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. I, Page 2: We understood coordination to require an agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“After making a ‘thorough factual investigation’ into these matters, the special counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. II, Page 2: Second, while the O.L.C. opinion concludes that a sitting president may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the president’s term is permissible. The O.L.C. opinion also recognizes that a president does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the president committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“The special counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the president’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The special counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”


FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. II, Page 2: Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Vol. II, Page 8: Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the president’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Just remember that in his letter to Congress, Mr. Barr did not explain that Mr. Mueller was trying to leave open the possibility that prosecutors in the future, after Mr. Trump leaves office, could look at the evidence he gathered and decide then whether to indict Mr. Trump. That stemmed from the view of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, that sitting presidents cannot be indicted but former presidents lose such immunity. That conflicted with Mr. Barr’s desire to pronounce Mr. Trump cleared now.

[scottw]

I'm sorry that you are so disappointed...I know how much you had invested in Trump's demise...

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Maybe if I couch it in simple terms you could understand.

Your wife would be fine if you told her you were going for a drink after work, but you neglected to tell her it is with an old girlfriend.

Think she would be fine with that?

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't end with her running around sky-screaming "NOT MY HUSBAND!!!!"

also pretty sure I'd spend a couple of nights on the couch, but not 2 years and counting

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't end with her running around sky-screaming "NOT MY HUSBAND!!!!"

also pretty sure I'd spend a couple of nights on the couch, but not 2 years and counting

You might just have to leave if when she found out and asked you about it, your reaction was to run around sky-screaming "witchhunt" and insulting her, like Deranged Donald has been for the past two years.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You might just have to leave if when she found out and asked you about it, your reaction was to run around sky-screaming "witchhunt" and insulting her, like Deranged Donald has been for the past two years.

who says I have to leave? And If she stopped asking about it, I'd stop sky screaming about it. But if every morning when i woke up until I went to bed I had to hear about it for two years....well....things may get tense.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't end with her running around sky-screaming "NOT MY HUSBAND!!!!"

also pretty sure I'd spend a couple of nights on the couch, but not 2 years and counting

what if you brought her back for a threesome?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Maybe if I couch it in simple terms you could understand.

Your wife would be fine if you told her you were going for a drink after work, but you neglected to tell her it is with an old girlfriend.

Think she would be fine with that?

Hey, you didn't lie and you told her what you were doing.

Barr could have released the already redacted Executive summaries that were contained in the Mueller report, but people would have read them.

Not the same as the spin he released, that just omitted what didn't fit the desired narrative.

There is lots more there if you took the time to read the report.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the special counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign ‘coordinated’ with Russian election interference activities. The special counsel defined ‘coordination’ as an ‘agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference.’”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. I, Page 2: We understood coordination to require an agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“After making a ‘thorough factual investigation’ into these matters, the special counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. II, Page 2: Second, while the O.L.C. opinion concludes that a sitting president may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the president’s term is permissible. The O.L.C. opinion also recognizes that a president does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the president committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“The special counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as ‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the president’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The special counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”


FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. II, Page 2: Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Vol. II, Page 8: Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the president’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Just remember that in his letter to Congress, Mr. Barr did not explain that Mr. Mueller was trying to leave open the possibility that prosecutors in the future, after Mr. Trump leaves office, could look at the evidence he gathered and decide then whether to indict Mr. Trump. That stemmed from the view of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, that sitting presidents cannot be indicted but former presidents lose such immunity. That conflicted with Mr. Barr’s desire to pronounce Mr. Trump cleared now.

I'm not an idiot, and I don't see huge differences between what you claim Mueler said, and what you claim Barr said. They are both saying there was no evidence sufficient to charge anyone, so let's move on.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not an idiot, and I don't see huge differences between what you claim Mueler said, and what you claim Barr said. They are both saying there was no evidence sufficient to charge anyone, so let's move on.

Barr's summary basically said nobody did anything wrong, that's a far cry from what the report actually said.

Why do you think Mueller was so pissed at Barr?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Barr's summary basically said nobody did anything wrong, that's a far cry from what the report actually said.

Why do you think Mueller was so pissed at Barr?

Barrs summary said there was insufficient evidence to support criminal charges, didn’t it?

For the 5th time, It’s reported that Mueller called Barr and said his
conclusions were not inaccurate.

this collusion hoax is just about three years old now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Did you not read the Mueller report?

It's not what he said, it's what he did not say. The summaries were already prepared by the Mueller team and not used. Instead he quoted portions of paragraphs and spun the narrative.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“In making this determination, we noted that the special counsel recognized that ‘the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,’ and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the president’s intent with respect to obstruction.”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. II, Page 157: Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect noncriminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong. In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the president’s conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events — such as advance notice of WikiLeaks’ release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016, meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians could be seen as criminal activity by the president, his campaign or his family.

FROM WILLIAM P. BARR

“The special counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: ‘[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.’”

FROM ROBERT S. MUELLER III

Vol. I, Page 1: The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

i am
sorry, maybe i’m having a slow day. when i compare what you have in bold between the two, i see a lot
of similarities.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

it's not what he cut and pasted......it's what he did not cut and paste

understand now?!!